Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Satya Prakash Saxena (Dead) on 18 March, 2016
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, S.A. Bobde
SLP(C) No...... CC 2933 of 2016
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) ......../2016
CC NO. 2933/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/04/2014
in WA No. 274/2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Indore)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SATYA PRAKASH SAXENA (DEAD) Respondent(s)
I.A. 1/2016(With condonation of delay in filing SLP and office
report)
Date : 18/03/2016 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Garg, A.O.R.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Application seeking exemption from filing official translation is allowed.
This petition by way of special leave against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has been filed after a delay of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2016.03.29 523 days. In fact, the impugned order itself is 14:50:00 IST Reason: one by which the Division Bench declined to condone PAGE NO. 1 of 3 SLP(C) No...... CC 2933 of 2016 the delay of 452 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal finding no sufficient reasons explaining such a long delay. In such circumstances, we do not find any scope to entertain this Special Leave Petition.
However, we find that the petitioner has filed another application for substituting the legal representatives of the sole respondent who will be the beneficiaries now to reap the benefits granted in favour of the deceased respondent by the order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are of the view that for the petitioner to be able to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, the legal representatives of the respondents should be impleaded. Unfortunately, we find that in seeking for the substitution, there is a delay of 3147 days, i.e., nearly nine years in filing the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the application was filed for substituting the legal representatives in the High Court, and that the same was not considered by the High Court since the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. Having noticed the abnormal delay by which the PAGE NO. 2 of 3 SLP(C) No...... CC 2933 of 2016 Special Leave Petitions are filed in this Court especially by the State of Madhya Pradesh, in spite of repeated cautioning, we do not find any improvement in the attitude of the concerned officers of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the delay in filing the application for substituting the legal representatives namely, 3147 days can be condoned subject to imposition of exemplary costs and with that view, the delay is condoned directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand) by way of costs to the proposed legal representatives of the deceased respondent. Such costs shall be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Special Leave Petition, however, stands dismissed.
[KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
PAGE NO. 3 of 3